ONTD

9:10 am - 09/19/2012

Ben Affleck Changes Argo Postscript in Response to Criticism



This is a story with a novel Hollywood ending: how Ken Taylor and Ben Affleck became new best friends after the Star revealed that Taylor’s pals were offended by the way he was portrayed in Affleck’s new movie Argo.

When Affleck heard about the controversy, he picked up the phone and called Taylor, Canada’s former ambassador to Iran. And as Affleck explained Tuesday in an exclusive interview with the Star, he told Taylor, “If you have issues, I’ll address them.”

The result: a postscript line onscreen at the end of the movie, which Taylor’s friends regarded as an insult both to him and to Canada, has been removed and replaced by a new postscript: “The involvement of the CIA complemented efforts of the Canadian embassy to free the six held in Tehran. To this day the story stands as an enduring model of international co-operation between governments.”



Argo is the tale of how six U.S. diplomats escaped from Iran, after extremists seized control of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and took 63 people hostage. The six were sheltered at the Canadian embassy until they made their escape in January 1980. (The others were not released until 1981.)

When Argo had its world premiere at a TIFF gala at Roy Thomson Hall on Sept. 7, the suggestion was that CIA operatives were the true heroes in the six fugitives’ escape. The old postscript sent the message that, for political reasons, Canada took the credit. A sarcastic kicker noted that Taylor received 112 citations. The clear implication was that he did not deserve them.

When Affleck phoned Taylor, he said, “Frankly, if this bothers you, then I’ll change it.”

At Affleck’s invitation, Taylor, now 77, and his wife, Pat Taylor, flew from their New York home to Los Angeles, checked into the Four Seasons Hotel and attended a private screening of Argo on the Warner Bros. lot. Before this week, they had not seen it.

“I expressed my concern with certain details in the movie,” Taylor told me just before leaving his hotel to catch a flight back to New York. “In reality, Canada was responsible for the six and the CIA was a junior partner. But I realize this is a movie and you have to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. Ben was very gracious and we got along really well. There are a few points I want to address. Now Ben and I both feel free to talk about them.”

So well, in fact, that Taylor and his wife taped a commentary for the extra features on the DVD version of Argo, which will not be released until 2013.


“I’m so pleased this had a great happy ending,” Affleck says.

Indeed, he spent hours hanging out with Taylor and his wife, touring the Warner Bros. lot and having lunch there.

“I love Ken,” adds Affleck. “I already had so much respect for him before we met. He is a class act.”

Affleck invited the Taylors to attend both the L.A. premiere of the movie on Oct. 6 and a special Washington, D.C., screening on Oct. 10. They declined the L.A. event but will happily be front and centre for the D.C. screening.

“We’re making it into a ‘Thank you Canada’ occasion,” says Affleck. Many key Canadians will be invited, he promises.

That’s quite a contrast to the Toronto premiere. Taylor wasn’t invited to that gala and, according to his friends, that was lucky, given the suggestion that he didn’t really deserve his status as the hero who masterminded the escape of the six U.S. diplomatic workers.

The movie gives the leading role to a CIA employee named Tony Mendez, played by Affleck, who came up with a scheme for a fake supposedly Canadian movie called Argo. The fugitives were disguised as a film crew and smuggled out on fake Canadian passports.

According to Taylor, several details of the plot are pure fiction. There was never any crisis about getting the plane tickets for the six, as in the climatic scenes of Argo, because he bought three sets of plane tickets, paid for by Pat Taylor. Nor did Taylor ever threaten to close down the Canadian embassy, leaving his secret U.S. house guests with nowhere to hide. Nor did the six ever go to a bazaar.

“I would never have allowed that,” says Taylor.

And oh, by the way, while in Tehran, Mendez was taken care of by the Canadian embassy.


“What matters to me is the essence and importance of diplomacy,” Taylor sums up. “It matters more now than ever before. It’s a risky business but vitally important.

“You can’t just close the office,” he adds, in an apparent swipe at Ottawa’s recent decision to close the Canadian embassy in Iran.

For Ben Affleck, what counts is this: “It’s important to tell stories about how two countries worked together.”

Fade out on Hollywood’s real-life bromance.


The original article that prompted this is here if it interests anybody: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/tiff/article/1255390--tiff-2012-how-canadian-hero-ken-taylor-was-snubbed-by-argo


SOURCE
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
andres01234 19th-Sep-2012 02:08 pm (UTC)
lol not shocked
Amurika is always the good guys
justrachna 19th-Sep-2012 02:12 pm (UTC)
Canada helped coordinate this AND allowed them to use canadian passports which is a huge deal so fuck affleck
starswept 19th-Sep-2012 02:18 pm (UTC)
Not to mention our Prime Minister calling a secret session of Parliament for the first time since WWII to authorize said passports, the Canadian ambassador risking his life to do this, etc. But I expected that it being a Hollywood production, it would dramatize things and make it about the Americans. In an interview, Ben Affleck did note that it just says "BASED on a true story" rather than "a true story", which gives them license to mess with the facts. But the rudeness to Ken Taylor in the postscript was uncalled for - this is a real person we're talking about. I was also shocked by the fact that during production no one, including Victor Garbor (who is playing Taylor), ever spoke to Ken! I thought it was kind of standard when you're playing a real-life person who's still alive to at least meet with them. BUT I give Affleck credit for acknowledging the criticism rather than just ignoring it.
justrachna 19th-Sep-2012 02:22 pm (UTC)
Well said bb. Though i feel like ben affleck should've done all this from the start instead of waiting for the criticisms. And i feel like the artistic license he used as described by the article is insulting. Like suggesting that the whole idea was american operatives or that ken taylor threatened to shut the embassy when that was so far from the truth. I like ben affleck as a director so i will wait until i see this but this article doesn't give me much hope
thesegoto11 19th-Sep-2012 02:24 pm (UTC)
“What matters to me is the essence and importance of diplomacy,” Taylor sums up. “It matters more now than ever before. It’s a risky business but vitally important."

ia ia ia

Edited at 2012-09-19 02:24 pm (UTC)
roguedandelion 19th-Sep-2012 02:24 pm (UTC)
I don't want to see this movies and I'm sick of seeing previews for it.
recenthistory 19th-Sep-2012 02:54 pm (UTC)
Really? I've only seen 1 preview.
roguedandelion 19th-Sep-2012 02:59 pm (UTC)
I don't see movies very often, but it's been previewed at everyone I've seen. And the last movie I saw was "The Campaign" The silly Will Ferrel movie, which isn't even close to this genre and it was there.

Edited at 2012-09-19 02:59 pm (UTC)
la_petite_singe 19th-Sep-2012 02:27 pm (UTC)
I'm really looking forward to this movie; the cast is amazing. Rather impressed that he actually changed it in response to criticism; too many big-name directors/actors would just be like NO FUCK YOU IT'S PERFECT and not care.
sherlockholmes 19th-Sep-2012 02:34 pm (UTC)
I'm impressed with Ben's response to the criticism. I am. I just think it's odd that none of this was addressed before the film was finished.
starswept 19th-Sep-2012 02:36 pm (UTC)
Had Argo not had a premiere at TIFF, it probably never would have been addressed. Luckily with the premiere being in Toronto some of Ken Taylor's friends bought tickets and after they saw this go down, they brought it to the attention of the Toronto Star.
sherlockholmes 19th-Sep-2012 02:42 pm (UTC)
And that's a huge problem! I mean -- if you're making a film about a guy who is still alive, I think you should want to include him in the process long before this stage. I mean, I'm glad Ben addressed the concerns but it should have been dealt with before TIFF.

I'm still not sure if I should be excited about this movie.
invisible_cunt 19th-Sep-2012 03:12 pm (UTC)
i'm really hoping that when the film ended, someone stood up and yelled "WHAT ABOUT CANADA, AFFLECK!?"
boomstick 19th-Sep-2012 02:44 pm (UTC)
While I think he should've done his research and kept it closer to the story (though I do understand the need for constant drama in a movie so the audience doesn't get bored), it's cool that he changed things and took criticism so well. But there might have been less if the story was closer to what really happened.

I went to the spy exhibit at the Discovery center in Manhattan and they had an Argo display. The lengths they went to disguise the six is insane. They did things I never would have even thought about, like making them wear special shoes to change the way they walked.
georgiana08 19th-Sep-2012 02:44 pm (UTC)
That was good of him to change it. I'm sure there are a lot of others who wouldn't have.
these_days 19th-Sep-2012 02:49 pm (UTC)
Am I being overly sensitive as a Persian that I'm upset about this moving coming out especially at this time... I feel like people already don't have the best view of Iran and then this movie comes out....
roguedandelion 19th-Sep-2012 03:02 pm (UTC)
Most Persians I know don't give a fuck about perceptions of Iran- but then their families fled here when the Shah fell so guess they wouldn't.
these_days 19th-Sep-2012 03:14 pm (UTC)
so did my family but we still give a fuck about perceptions of Iran. Especially when some of us still get the "go back to your own country terrorist" comments. I was pissed when I first saw the preview.
forevergold217 19th-Sep-2012 03:03 pm (UTC)
awww s'alright bb, I understand where you're coming from
invisible_cunt 19th-Sep-2012 03:16 pm (UTC)
it is a sensitive time, i see that
but it's not like the film's intent is to slander iran even more

i went to school with many persians and while they were very proud about being persian/iranian, i don't remember many, if any, expressing a connection to the country
browniecakemix 19th-Sep-2012 03:55 pm (UTC)
I mean, the people in charge of Iran are kind of being colossal dicks at the moment, but ia that's not the people's fault

I wish there were more awareness of Persian culture because it's beautiful and awesome, and I feel like hardly anyone knows the historical context of the Iranian political landscape being the way it is today and I think that's sad

Marjane Satrapi's stuff should be required reading/viewing at every high school tbh

Edited at 2012-09-19 03:56 pm (UTC)
grilled_cheese 20th-Sep-2012 05:15 am (UTC)
No, I'm really not psyched about this movie coming out, and especially not now. NHF all the shit stirring this will bring up, or having to hear people talking about the hostage situation in a detached manner when I feel like as a community we're still dealing with the fall out from it all the time. :/
ellaellaeheheh 19th-Sep-2012 02:53 pm (UTC)
I can try to understand having to change stuff for the sake of a good movie, but you have to respect people's legacy. it matters to them and their family, you can't just change things with the based on a true story excuse, that is bullshit to me, why not change the name them? you would make someone forever attached to a different story, just for artistic reasons.
at least he changed it.
starswept 19th-Sep-2012 02:55 pm (UTC)
Well, he changed the postscript so it doesn't overtly insult Ken Taylor anymore. But the film itself will still contain tons of inaccuracies - focusing on the Americans' role and minimizing the Canadians, adding in dramatic events that didn't happen (i.e. Taylor threatening to close the embassy, dramatic chase on the airport runway, etc). That stuff can't be changed now obviously.
ellaellaeheheh 19th-Sep-2012 02:59 pm (UTC)
that sucks because now people who are not familiar with the story, like myself, will have that view first, which is the main problem with this based on true story shit in the first place. so I'm back to square one. If I ever watch the movie I'll be sure to read about this before.
agentgoodnight 19th-Sep-2012 02:53 pm (UTC)
While it's good of him to change it, what the hell Ben? I don't understand how lessening the impact of the actions of Canada or full on changing the story makes it better. What really happened is pretty amazing on it's own, no need to slight a country in the process.
my_moloko 19th-Sep-2012 03:03 pm (UTC)
Ugh, this is such a classic American dick move. Act like they did all the work while we were just standing by twiddling our thumbs.
invisible_cunt 19th-Sep-2012 03:07 pm (UTC)
this kind of ruins the movie for me a bit tbh
historical films shouldn't have embellished elements
rogue 19th-Sep-2012 06:54 pm (UTC)
but all of them do
all of them
fabouluz 19th-Sep-2012 05:10 pm (UTC)
This sounds good of him.
velvetunicorn 19th-Sep-2012 05:18 pm (UTC)
This is kind of typical of how American films tend to exaggerate events and downplay other countries' involvement. Britain does this too. "No one cares if Canada was there" - pretty much every ww2 movie ever
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
This page was loaded May 18th 2013, 6:27 am GMT.